If you want to refute or confirm god, you first have to define the term.

If you want to chat with god, I recommend deemer. He has been getting rather petulant with those who don't have a good question for him ready when they do make the encounter, though, lately, I must advise.

I rather think it affects physical acuity more. I always feel more enlightened after a toke, yet less likely to carry my discoveries to fruition./but, maybe that's just me//DNRTFA///nor the comments; apologies in advance for repeats

From further reading, including the release by UWO itself, this seems to be focused on corroborating what is known in research rather than bringing any shattering revelations to light. Will check into the study shortly, but I am imagining the release and articles suffer from basic misconceptions about intelligence testing, and therefore whatever information gleaned from the study are placed through this filter. No one in the research believes IQ is a measure of all intelligence, but IQ is a good measure of some facet of intelligence, receives reliable and valid scoring, and higher IQ is strongly correlated with higher universal aptitudes while higher specific aptitudes are strongly correlated with higher IQ.

The ideas IQ represents nothing of intelligence and IQ represents everything of intelligence are both quite and, for my field, painfully wrong, but the former is further wrong.

Let me break from this notion of there being "other forms of intelligence" because what you follow with seems taken from Gardner MI theory. Not to say intelligence is a singular construct, but rather than being distinct forms of intelligence, there are subsets which are related and interact. Will assume you are an educator since this seems to be where MI theory and learning styles take root, and allow me to say abandon the idea those are distinct forms of intelligence or learning; rather, there are several basic means to convey information in education (kinesthetic, tactile, reading, visual, auditory, verbal) and some people have pronounced domains which are favored by the environment and physiology. Gardner is intelligent and thought-provoking, but as a theory of intelligence his ideas fail due to g-theory which has broad acceptance and is compatible with theories of intelligence such as Triarchic by Sternberg. You do not have a bad musical intelligence, you have little development of the components for music such as rhythm and fine motor skills, and you do not have a good kinesthetic intelligence, you have advanced psychomotor development which could be said to cover gross motor skills and athleticism (notice, "psychomotor" is not a form of intelligence isolated in neurology but a general domain which helps us discuss subsets of aptitudes).

As to the actual question, intelligence testing of any type relates to development. We expect people of this age to consistently grapple with abstractions, motor function, sensory processing, etc., of this complexity, and this provides us a measure of intelligence. Several instruments do quite well identifying people who are extremely talented musicians or athletes but who do not perform in academic or memory tasks because those are taken into account. We could develop objective measures easily for a majority of aptitudes such as music (similarity and consistency of rhythm and tone on an instrument) or athletics (hand-eye coordination tasks and general athleticism), but the issue is those are extremely targeted and would require generations to resolve with the current matrices. I find my musically talented students perform well on the WISC, and when not, I sign off all the same; intelligence identifiers only matter as long as the world, such as education system, reacts.

I smoke every day. I feel like I'm pretty sharp but I'm also not concerned with some IQ number that someone else assigns, nor someone who makes their entire judgement of someone's intelligence/worth by their hobby or habit. I know plenty of smart dudes who smoke. I know plenty of smart dudes who watch wrestling. You could probably engineer a study that shows on average, wrestling fans have 2 points lower IQ or something. Who gives a shiat.

I enjoy it for playing video games, listening to tunes, reading, hobby programming or whatever else. Don't like it for social situations as I find myself wishing for more peace and quiet to draw or something, and certainly don't mix it with my job. I think anyone interested in seeing things a little differently should consider trying it at least once, obviously it isn't for everyone but it can be a fun experience if you've never tried any drugs before. If you don't like it, the world keeps turning.

Smoked pot three times in high school, got caught each time, by the cops, my parents, and school, respectively.

Didn't toke up again until second semester sophomore year. Was pothead (smoked and played lots of video games and watched movies) for two years of college, graduated with shiatty GPA.

Stopped smoking again for a few years. Came back to it to help me work out, stretch, and dance. Now its a stimulant. Use much less frequently, get incredibly creative after smoking and stretching. Was totally doing it wrong in college.

There is a reason why Michael Phelps, the Canadian Snowboard Team, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many other elite level athletes smoke cannabis. Its because it is a ridiculous stimulant when combined with anaerobic exercise to mover the cannabinoids through their metabolic pathways and an acidic catalyser to disengage all the sticky molecules and allow them to seek out the cannabinoid receptors throughout the peripheral nervous system. It awakens an incredible amount of lasting energy, not just kinetic energy, but creativity coupled with rhythm, balance, and extremity-eye coordination.

Its not widely known or appreciated, sadly, but its an incredibly awesome way to use the herb. Try it sometime...

I don't normally like to admit this, but about thirty years ago, I consumed enough LSD to make Hunter Thompson look like a Boy Scout.

I didn't actually see God, but I heard Him.

Sort of a "Universal Dial Tone", if you will.

God exists.

Well, about 30 years ago I consumed enough mushrooms to be able to see the entire universe through all of space and time. What you heard was actually a dial tone because while you were able to lift the receiver, your fingers had melted to the point that you couldn't dial. Oh, and there is no god.

you guys, chill, i'm ok you're ok, 20 days ago i drunk enough brawdo to be be able to think real deep and stuff, and i picked up a phone to order a pizza but accidentally and dialed the universe and somethin

Smoked pot three times in high school, got caught each time, by the cops, my parents, and school, respectively.

Didn't toke up again until second semester sophomore year. Was pothead (smoked and played lots of video games and watched movies) for two years of college, graduated with shiatty GPA.

Stopped smoking again for a few years. Came back to it to help me work out, stretch, and dance. Now its a stimulant. Use much less frequently, get incredibly creative after smoking and stretching. Was totally doing it wrong in college.

There is a reason why Michael Phelps, the Canadian Snowboard Team, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many other elite level athletes smoke cannabis. Its because it is a ridiculous stimulant when combined with anaerobic exercise to mover the cannabinoids through their metabolic pathways and an acidic catalyser to disengage all the sticky molecules and allow them to seek out the cannabinoid receptors throughout the peripheral nervous system. It awakens an incredible amount of lasting energy, not just kinetic energy, but creativity coupled with rhythm, balance, and extremity-eye coordination.

Its not widely known or appreciated, sadly, but its an incredibly awesome way to use the herb. Try it sometime...

THIS.

Used properly it is an amazing tool.

OK, I haven't actually smoked up in a long time, but after reading the above I'm gonna give that a try. Lucky me, I live in New New Amsterdam Washington State. Thanks for the tip!

1. Higher than average childhood IQs inevitably regress at least a bit toward the mean as subjects age.2. Most of the people minimizing the value of this study have a vested interest in the status quo.3. Gov't officials from the Surgeon General on down have made false negative statements about drugs in the past, claiming that "anything", apparently including outright fabrication, is acceptable if it supports government policy.4. Televising Honey farking Boo-Boo has killed more brain cells than all the pot in the world.5. Smart people smoke pot so they can put up with all you damned idiots.

MrEricSir:IQ tests are meaningless for this sort of thing. What you should do is give someone a piece of fruit, some wax paper, an empty CD case, some string, and a can of soup. Tell them to make a bong out of it.

I guarantee you, your average stoner will pass this test with flying colors.

trappedspirit:The All-Powerful Atheismo: I just get annoyed by the biggest-IQ-dick competitions that happen in these types of threads. And not because I'm jealous. I qualified for Mensa and test around 150 or so, not that that means anything.

Vangor:kruppz: So that's why I.Q. tests were deemed a myth a few weeks ago.

From further reading, including the release by UWO itself, this seems to be focused on corroborating what is known in research rather than bringing any shattering revelations to light. Will check into the study shortly, but I am imagining the release and articles suffer from basic misconceptions about intelligence testing, and therefore whatever information gleaned from the study are placed through this filter. No one in the research believes IQ is a measure of all intelligence, but IQ is a good measure of some facet of intelligence, receives reliable and valid scoring, and higher IQ is strongly correlated with higher universal aptitudes while higher specific aptitudes are strongly correlated with higher IQ.

The ideas IQ represents nothing of intelligence and IQ represents everything of intelligence are both quite and, for my field, painfully wrong, but the former is further wrong.

Ayn Rand's Social Worker: I always wondered about what the best ways to test other forms of intelligence than IQ.

Let me break from this notion of there being "other forms of intelligence" because what you follow with seems taken from Gardner MI theory. Not to say intelligence is a singular construct, but rather than being distinct forms of intelligence, there are subsets which are related and interact. Will assume you are an educator since this seems to be where MI theory and learning styles take root, and allow me to say abandon the idea those are distinct forms of intelligence or learning; rather, there are several basic means to convey information in education (kinesthetic, tactile, reading, visual, auditory, verbal) and some people have pronounced domains which are favored by the environment and physiology. Gardner is intelligent and thought-provoking, but as a theory of intelligence his ideas fail due to g-theory which has broad acceptance and is compatible with theories of intelligence such as Triarchic by Ste ...

Vangor:kruppz: So that's why I.Q. tests were deemed a myth a few weeks ago.

From further reading, including the release by UWO itself, this seems to be focused on corroborating what is known in research rather than bringing any shattering revelations to light. Will check into the study shortly, but I am imagining the release and articles suffer from basic misconceptions about intelligence testing, and therefore whatever information gleaned from the study are placed through this filter. No one in the research believes IQ is a measure of all intelligence, but IQ is a good measure of some facet of intelligence, receives reliable and valid scoring, and higher IQ is strongly correlated with higher universal aptitudes while higher specific aptitudes are strongly correlated with higher IQ.

The ideas IQ represents nothing of intelligence and IQ represents everything of intelligence are both quite and, for my field, painfully wrong, but the former is further wrong.

Ayn Rand's Social Worker: I always wondered about what the best ways to test other forms of intelligence than IQ.

Let me break from this notion of there being "other forms of intelligence" because what you follow with seems taken from Gardner MI theory. Not to say intelligence is a singular construct, but rather than being distinct forms of intelligence, there are subsets which are related and interact. Will assume you are an educator since this seems to be where MI theory and learning styles take root, and allow me to say abandon the idea those are distinct forms of intelligence or learning; rather, there are several basic means to convey information in education (kinesthetic, tactile, reading, visual, auditory, verbal) and some people have pronounced domains which are favored by the environment and physiology. Gardner is intelligent and thought-provoking, but as a theory of intelligence his ideas fail due to g-theory which has broad acceptance and is compatible with theories of intelligence such as Triarchic by Ste ...

Touche! I hadn't read about Gardner being debunked, when I was presented the information on MI back in college it was treated as though it had undergone and passed peer review. Looks like thats not the case. I am heartened to see that IQ is now more textured to the point where it can be used to describe more aptitudes that merely logic, language, and spatial.

Much as I'd like to believe it, maybe we're not all geniuses in some way...

tshauk:mjbok: I think one major factor is the amount. Just like someone that has a glass of wine at dinner or maybe a beer a couple of times a week is impacted differently than someone who has a bottle or a six pack every day.

I've known people that the change in intelligence over years was very noticeable who smoked pot everyday. Wake and bake, lunch and bake, bake night snack. Not the same level of intelligence after years of that.

Way back in high school, I filled in my multiple choice I.Q. test in about three minutes. They said the word "provincial" before the test. I didn't want "them" knowing how smart I was. I made a nice wavy pattern.